do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Case T-181/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2017-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017269EN.01001901.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/19





Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER PRECISE)
(Case T-181/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER PRECISE - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2017/C 269/26)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2911/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


L’Oréal shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 26 June 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping) — Rapporteur: Cyprus
Date: 2017-06-26
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: control of restrictive practices, dominant position, electronic commerce, restrictive trade practice, sanction (EU), search engine








C_2018009EN.01000501.xml










12.1.2018   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 9/5





Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive practices and dominant positions given at its meeting of 26 June 2017 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39740 — Google Search (Shopping)
Rapporteur: Cyprus
(2018/C 9/06)






(1)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressees of the draft decision.










(2)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine set in this case.










(3)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating and no mitigating circumstances applicable in this case.










(4)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a multiplier for deterrence should be applied in this case. A majority of Member States agree. One Member State abstains.










(5)


The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine. A majority of Member States agree. One Member State abstains.










(6)


The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.
Case C-381/17: Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
Date: 2017-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: consumer credit, consumer protection, mortgage, national implementing measure, real estate credit, sanction (EU)








C_2017283EN.01002701.xml










28.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 283/27





Action brought on 26 June 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Croatia
(Case C-381/17)
(2017/C 283/37)
Language of the case: Croatian

Parties


Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Mataija, T. Scharf, G. von Rintelen, acting as Agents, acting as Agent(s))

Defendant: Republic of Croatia

Form of order sought

The European Commission claims that the Court should:






—


declare that the Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 42(1) of Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 (OJ 2014, L 60, p. 34), by failing to adopt, by 21 March 2016, the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with that Directive or, in any event, by failing to communicate those measures to the Commission;










—


order the Republic of Croatia, in accordance with Article 260(3) TFEU, to pay a penalty payment of EUR 9 865,40 per day, as from the date of delivery of the judgment declaring the failure to fulfil the obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/17/EU;










—


order Republic of Croatia to pay the costs.





Pleas in law and main arguments

The Republic of Croatia has failed to fulfil its obligation to notify the measures transposing Directive 2014/17/EU within the period laid down in Article 42(1) of that Directive.
Case T-27/17 R: Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament (Interim measures — Institutional law — Member of the European Parliament — Privileges and immunities — Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament — Application for suspension of operation — No urgency)
Date: 2017-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: France, Member of the European Parliament, judicial investigation, organic law, parliamentary immunity








C_2017269EN.01002402.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/24





Order of the President of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — Jalkh v Parliament
(Case T-27/17 R)
((Interim measures - Institutional law - Member of the European Parliament - Privileges and immunities - Waiver of the parliamentary immunity of a Member of the European Parliament - Application for suspension of operation - No urgency))
(2017/C 269/36)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: Jean-François Jalkh (Gretz-Armainvillers, France) (represented initially by J.-P. Le Moigne, and subsequently by M. Ceccaldi, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by M. Dean and S. Alonso de León, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application based on Articles 278 and 279 TFEU seeking the suspension of the operation of the decision of the Parliament of 22 November 2016 concerning the waiver of Mr Jalkh’s immunity in view of the judicial investigation (No 14142000183) open before the tribunal de grande instance de Nanterre (Court of First Instance, Nanterre, France).

Operative part of the order







1.


The application for interim measures is dismissed.










2.


The costs are reserved.
Case T-179/16: Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY) (EU trade mark — Opposition proceedings — Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY — Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS — Relative ground for refusal — Likelihood of confusion — Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 — Action manifestly unfounded in law — Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure)
Date: 2017-06-26
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: EU trade mark, cosmetic product, registered trade mark, trade-mark law








C_2017269EN.01001702.xml










14.8.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 269/17





Order of the General Court of 26 June 2017 — L'Oréal v EUIPO — Guinot (MASTER SMOKY)
(Case T-179/16) (1)

((EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for EU word mark MASTER SMOKY - Prior national figurative mark MASTERS COLORS PARIS - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - Action manifestly unfounded in law - Article 126 of the Rules of Procedure))
(2017/C 269/24)
Language of the case: French

Parties


Applicant: L'Oréal (Paris, France) (represented by: T. de Haan and P. Péters, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: D. Hanf, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO intervening before the General Court: Guinot (Paris) (represented by: A. Sion, lawyer)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 23 February 2016 (Case R 2905/2014-5) concerning opposition proceedings between Guinot and L’Oréal.

Operative part of the order







1.


The action is dismissed.










2.


L’Oréal shall pay the costs.






(1)  OJ C 222, 20.6.2016.
Case C-380/17: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K. and B.; other parties: H.Y., Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
Date: 2017-06-26
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: family, family migration, foreign national, refugee, residence permit








C_2017300EN.01001801.xml










11.9.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 300/18





Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Netherlands) lodged on 26 June 2017 — Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K. and B.; other parties: H.Y., Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie
(Case C-380/17)
(2017/C 300/22)
Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings


Appellants: Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie, K. and B.

Other parties: H.Y., Staatssecretaris van Veiligheid en Justitie

Questions referred







1.


Having regard to Article 3(2)(c) of Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (OJ 2003 L 251, p. 12) and to the judgment of 18 October 2012 in Nolan (Case C-583/10, EU:C:2012:638), does the Court of Justice have jurisdiction to answer questions referred for a preliminary ruling by courts in the Netherlands on the interpretation of provisions of that directive in proceedings concerning the right of residence of a member of the family of a person with subsidiary protection status, if that directive has, under Netherlands law, been declared directly and unconditionally applicable to persons with subsidiary protection status?










2.


Does the system provided for by Council Directive 2003/86/EC … preclude a national rule, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which an application for consideration for family reunification on the basis of the more favourable provisions of Chapter V of that directive can be rejected for the sole reason that it was not submitted within the period laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 12(1)?
For the purpose of answering this question, does any relevance attach to the fact that it is possible, in the event of the aforementioned period being exceeded, to submit an application for family reunification, whether or not after a rejection, in which an assessment is made as to whether the requirements laid down in Article 7 of Directive 2003/86/EC have been met and in which the interests and circumstances indicated in Articles 5(5) and 17 of that directive are taken into account?
Council Decision of 26 June 2017 renewing the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
Date: 2017-06-26
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Cedefop, Denmark, appointment of members, board of directors








C_2017204EN.01000201.xml










28.6.2017   


EN


Official Journal of the European Union


C 204/2





COUNCIL DECISION
of 26 June 2017
renewing the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training
(2017/C 204/03)
THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 337/75 of 10 February 1975 establishing the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training, and in particular Article 4 thereof (1),
Having regard to the nomination submitted by the Danish Government,
Whereas:






(1)


By its Decisions of 14 July 2015 (2) and of 14 September 2015 (3), the Council appointed the members of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the period from 18 September 2015 to 17 September 2018.










(2)


A member's seat is available for Denmark on the Governing Board of the Centre in the category of Government representatives as a result of the resignation of Mr Lars MORTENSEN.










(3)


The members of the Governing Board of the aforementioned Centre should be appointed for the remainder of the current term of office, which expires on 17 September 2018,




HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:
Article 1
The following person is hereby appointed member of the Governing Board of the European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training for the remainder of its term of office, which runs until 17 September 2018:
GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES:






DENMARK


Ms Lise Lotte TOFT




Article 2
This Decision shall be published, for information, in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 26 June 2017.


For the Council


The President

J. MIZZI




(1)  OJ L 39, 13.2.1975, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 232, 16.7.2015, p. 2.

(3)  OJ C 305, 16.9.2015, p. 2.